Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40739965›Full record

ReviewEwha medical journal2025

Non-operative management of locally advanced rectal cancer with an emphasis on outcomes and quality of life: a narrative review.

In Ja Park

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ewha medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

In Ja ParkDepartment of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non‑operative management, particularly the watch and wait (WW) strategy, has emerged as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for selected patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who achieve a clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant treatment. This narrative review examines oncologic outcomes, functional and quality‑of‑life benefits, diagnostic challenges, and surveillance requirements associated with WW compared to radical surgery. Evidence from randomized trials and international registries indicates that WW provides overall and disease-free survival rates comparable to those of surgery, provided that stringent selection criteria and intensive surveillance are maintained for 3 to 5 years. Local regrowth occurs in 15%-40% of patients-most commonly within 24 months-but salvage surgery is curative in over 90% of cases and restores oncologic equivalence. Nevertheless, distant metastasis is more frequent in patients who experience regrowth, underscoring the importance of early detection and the need for optimized systemic therapy. Accurate determination of cCR remains the primary limitation; digital rectal examination, high‑resolution magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopy, even when combined, cannot reliably exclude microscopic residual disease. Total neoadjuvant therapy increases cCR rates to 30%-60% and expands the pool of WW candidates, but also intensifies the need for standardized response definitions and surveillance algorithms. WW offers organ preservation and quality‑of‑life improvements without compromising survival in carefully selected patients, provided that multidisciplinary teams ensure rigorous response assessment and lifelong monitoring. Future advances in imaging, molecular biomarkers, and individualized risk stratification are expected to further enhance the safety of WW and expand eligibility to a broader patient population.

Indexed as

BiomarkersDisease-free survivalNeoadjuvant therapyQuality of lifeRectal neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID40739965
PMCPMC12362288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.